185
Model says her face was edited with AI to look white: ‘It’s very dehumanizing’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
185 points (89.7% liked)
Technology
60123 readers
3153 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This looks like a bad 15 minute Photoshop job. Why does she think it was AI? Where is the proof AI was used?
Or is this just more news cycle bullshit trying to throw in the latest controversial keywords 🤔
You say “Photoshop” as a generic term for “image editor”, even when there’s no reason to think it was that editor in particular.
Maybe “AI” is just replacing “Photoshop” as a generic term for any digital image manipulation.
"my face was altered by a man using GIMP!"
im sorry hwhat
Anyone's face can be altered if you use GIMP somewhere unexpected
CAUTION: NSFW
https://www.smiffys.com/products/gimp-costume
Maybe not 100% Photoshop usage, but 99.9% Adobe product based on what I see in every industry
Well read.
It used to be air brushing.
A totally formulaic article from deteriorating media.
They wonder why journalism died .
Air brushing, Photoshop, and AI are specific methodologies, you can't just use that as a generic term when that will just create more confusion and hide the meaning, especially when the difference is important due to legislation.
I never put out an article saying it was one of them definitively. I just said the style looked similar to another method.
"AI" is not a term for photo editing at all, much less a generic term for it. Using totally wrong words to refer to things doesn't make you innovative, it makes you a crackpot or a liar.
This is seriously the dumbest take I've seen all week and I can't believe how many people upvoted it.
No, you're just focusing on the wrong part - this article is about racism, not your favourite new tech..
Then why did they put the name of the latest tech in the title when it's not even relevant
Because the headline is about what the model said, and the model said that it was AI. Neither the headline nor the article says that she's right about it, just that her face was altered dramatically, which is absolutely relevant when you consider some of the most widespread uses for visual AI right now. This might have just been photoshop, but it looks a lot like some of the AI-powered TikTok filters, so it's worth a conversation as to why we feel the need to do this to people's faces at all.
AI image processing could do the job in two minutes with no skill, whereas manual image editing (even crappily) takes skill and time.
Why assume someone handcrafted it when there's no evidence?
Because the article specifically said "AI". It could have just said "edited" and left it at that is the methodology was unknown. But when the methodology is both unknown and doesn't affect the story at all, it's bullshit to put a potential lie in the headline just to act relevant to a different hot topic issue.